Jarrar, whose area of expertise is creative writing, popped off a couple edgy tweets:
“Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal”...People got mad and actually incited the university to "review" Jarrar, who is a tenured professor. Lame. Jarrar apparently doesn't feel threatened, or so she tweets — "I will never be fired" and:
“I’m happy the witch is dead. can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeee.”
“You should tag my president @JosephlCastro. What I love about being an American professor is my right to free speech, and what I love about Fresno State is that I always feel protected and at home here,” Jarrar wrote. “GO BULLDOGS!”What?! Freedom of speech excludes disrespect!??
On Wednesday, Castro told the Bee that Jarrar’s comments were “beyond free speech. This was disrespectful.”
“A professor with tenure does not have blanket protection to say and do what they wish,” he said. “We are all held accountable for our actions.”...Absolutely pathetic. It's really a wonder we've kept the idea of freedom of speech.
As the controversy swirled, Fresno City College said Jarrar had dropped out as the featured reader at an upcoming literary festival. Jarrar had been scheduled to headline Lit Hop on Saturday, but informed organizers this week that she was withdrawing, the college said.
“While we respect the right to free speech, even objectionable speech, Jarrar’s statements are her own and do not reflect the values of LitHop or Fresno City College,” the statement said. “We acknowledge the severity of her statements and take very seriously the concerns expressed throughout the community. The safety of each individual, including Jarrar’s, and all members of the LitHop and Fresno City College community is our paramount concern. We do not support violence or threats on social media or elsewhere; rather, we value civil discourse and look forward to the necessary healing ahead.”
पोस्ट्स
१८६ टिप्पण्या:
Professor Althouse ought to walk over to the Wisconsin Supreme Court today and listen in on the case of Marquette professor John McAdams. Major free speech case. I’m embarrassed a Jesuit college is trying to shut up and then fire a tenured professor.
Bureaucrats are actually thought to be idiots by default. There's just no reason to bring it up when they're silent.
The fun is their overestimation of their dignity.
I don't feel bad at all. THI$ I$ their ver$ion of free $peech. $omehow, $omeone wa$ able to $ugge$t that $he $hould be held accountable.
$ocial more$ are AL$O part of Free $peech and $omeone, probably the Alumni, are $peaking $tridently.
But I don't get the uproar. She keeps her tenure, she keeps her job...but those little social benefits, those ego rubs so beloved by tenured professors will be denied her.
She got HERS. Everyone else gets to indicated what a horrible, shrivel souled person she is, a tacky, hubristic entitled woman.
Is this a freedom of speech issue from the legal perspective, since the government isn't trying to shut her down? Doesn't her employer have the right to address inappropriate comments by her?
... and the value of a college education keeps getting lower and lower.
The inmates have taken over the asylum and they are destroying it.
The word tenure now means the Administration has to count to ten before they fire her silly ass.
I would say the problem is tenure. I held a job for 33 years during which my employer was a heck of a lot more concerned about keeping me from leaving than I was about being let go.
This would be less of a story if it didn't personally impact the special privileges of our hostess, who is appalled that any of her ilk could possibly be taken to account in any way.
That just isn't DONE to PROFESSORS. To students (particularly conservative ones), it is 'a learning experience.
But I am poking too much fun at Ms. Althouse. She has been pretty consistent in supporting free speech (though her tone has gone into high dudgeon when it pricks the privileges of professors)
But any honest analysis shows that these professors DESERVE this treatment. A majority of them have been HORRIBLE on free speech. They have been sowing the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind.
Sucks when you are forced to live under the rules you force on others.
Saul Alinsky was unavailable for comment.
XKCD nails it. Once again.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
If left-wingers want to criticize Trump, they have a lot to answer for first. Shit like this. Years and decades of calling Republicans heartless and stupid and racist and war criminals.
Liberals are like the boy who cried wolf, when it comes to criticizing Trump.
This is about making the left live by it's rules... This whole, we can say whatever the fuck we want and throw as much hate around as we want, but how dare you try to espouse a conservative viewpoint on campus or in the public sector...
Free speech for me, but not for thee is the creed of the fascist left... I think this woman should be fired and hounded from public life, with layers of derision poured on her head until she is left sobbing in a fat puddle of snot and tears....
I'm so sick of people like her who insult and revile others with impunity, but act like holier-than-thou defenders of free speech when confronted...
OK, I get the free speech thingy. But ... why are their NO consequences for this awful human being? The founding fathers could never have imagined the depravity that has permeated our society.
Does free speech say that anyone can say anything? How about the n-word or the k-word or the cracker word?
I think that a society that allows a cretin like this to continue to make >$100k a year—at a public institution no less—is fundamentally broken.
Sure, free speech. You're also free to cut your finger off or to head-butt a wall. But you generally don't do it because of consequences. What happens to the rights vs. responsibilities part of the equation?
This person at Fresno State is horrible and to let her continue to spew her inhuman hate is societally wrong.
Please, someone on this board who is smarter than I—and that includes most of you—help me understand this thing. Do we just ignore the venom and evil? Because if we do, it'll continue to flourish.
Help me out: free speech vs. actions have consequences. How can they coexist?
The problem isn't free speech it's tenure.
Faculty seems to think tenure makes you bullet-proof and made of asbestos.
Fresno City College hasn't got alumni.
Not the sort people running colleges listen to.
And this lady is a community college creative writing instructor.
This is a tempest in a very small teapot.
In the old days she would have muttered bitterly in a coffee shop or her class, and no one would have heard other than her unfortunate students.
The problem is not tenure.
It is the type of leftwing, poorly educated idiots that universities hire.
Cue Kurt Schlicter.
The Right is going to play be the Left's rules. Althouse may have noticed how bad the Left has been in free speech these last 30 years. But some people were behind the curve.
I'm with exhelorvr1. If this woman's public comments reference her employer, and either violate any internal rules and/or, by the nature of the comments, impact the employer, then her job is free game. She has the right to say pretty much anything she wants, but as soon as she publicly identifies her employer and creates an association between comments and employer, then it's now a different situation.
The same people who cheered the jailing of Wendy Davis and fining the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa into bankruptcy are solemnly lecturing us about Professor Rana Jarrar's sacred First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
[looking sideways at Althouse]
Both statements are bad. Jarrar thinks she has freedom of speech because of her position as a tenured professor. Not knowing what grants her free speech is a problem. This is of course complicated by the University President thinking free speech is limited to exclude disrespectful comments.
As for ignoring her; many choose not to ignore her because for too long, that was an attitude that allowed some to act anyway they cared, while at the same time, attacking others for simple things like opting not to bake a cake or serve pizza to a wedding. Neither the baker nor pizza store were looking for attention, but they got it. The rules have become clear, and nobody will like living under the new rules.
She should invoke a "creative writing" defense.
Ah..those wily tenured professors ;)
But really, Barbara Bush never came across as an integral power player in Bush policy decisions..snarking about her death crosses a few lines.
Let's take a closer look at the touching regard libtards have for academic freedom and the freedom of discourse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/
I suppose that I should add; didn’t Trump get awfully close to calling Bush a war criminal? During the early campaign?
Whenever I see the phrase ‘beyond free speech’ it reminds me of the Aussie duo skit about an oil tanker, which had a leak (because the front fell off) being ‘towed beyond the environment’.
The problem isn't free speech it's tenure.
Faculty seems to think tenure makes you bullet-proof and made of asbestos.
Jaraar is not in favor of free speech, she is in favor of her free speech.
It's the kind of free speech that allows you to shout down people you disagree with.
Joshua Barker said...
This is about making the left live by it's rules... This whole, we can say whatever the fuck we want and throw as much hate around as we want, but how dare you try to espouse a conservative viewpoint on campus or in the public sector..."
Exactly. How would this vile creature react if a conservative came to speak at Fresno State? Or if a colleague (tenured or not) wrote an article praising Israel?
And how did such a bigoted cretin get tenure in the first place?
I'm tired of "my speech is free speech, your speech is hate speech."
I didn't like Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan - two peas in a pod who both set back the women's liberation movement by decades by being like Tammy Waynette, simple fading into the background of their powerful husbands, and "standing by their man." Yuck! But, it is unfair to blame Barbara Bush for the Iraqi war crimes of her son, Dubya, resulting in the death of perhaps a million or more Iraqis.
Should Hitler's mother be blamed for the gas chambers? Don't be ridiculous. I don't even know if she cooked with gas. Can anyone even name her? Her name was Klara, and she died in 1907 from breast cancer. She had five other children. Barbara Bush also had six children, some with horns.
This is hardly newsworthy: Leftist asshole spouts hate and garbage at Conservative.
The only odd part is, unlike DECADES of such sentiments by Lefty Prog Professors, she is actually getting pushback! Her hatred is being challenged!
I think those denouncing students last week who pissed off the alumni, who donate millions to the university system, don't realize that there are actually still some adults with spines (and wallets) in the room.
The Academy does not seem to realize that it is, outside of STEM, a luxury good.
The students do not realize how much money is GIFTED to them by their parents, society and strangers with generous hearts.
Currently the Academy is being asked what value they are adding to society...and they are struggling for an answer which is not 'causing trouble and division'.
That, Ms. Althouse, is not what we were paying you for.
And now we are paying attention.
The Golden Age of 'Do Whatever the Fuck We Want On the Public Dime', is setting in the Academy.
'“A professor with tenure does not have blanket protection to say and do what they wish,” he said. “We are all held accountable for our actions.”...'
That's the standard leftist argument when the mob goes after someone on the right for something they said. Speech is a form of action and actions have consequences. You don't have the right to speak and not suffer the consequences of that action.
They never imagined that that argument could be made in regards to their speech.
I may be wrong, but I believe the reason profs are given tenure is so that they are free to conduct scholarly research without fear of intimidation.
How does that apply to insulting the memory of a another person?
Wouldn't free speech also cover someone's right to all for her to be canned?
Perhaps the college believed her comments were not made in good faith or violated the school's speech guidelines? Or moderation was turned on?...
Let them all burn while they wrestle with the mess they've created.
I think the Left has been saying these things for decades. But now social media has let them tell the WORLD what they think...and the World is not impressed with the quality of their thoughts.
Very clever arguments made by Marquette's lawyers. They must be former students of Professor Ann Althouse.
From Megan McArdle:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/tenure-an-idea-whose-time-has-gone/60187/
But if this is a First Amendment issue, as I keep hearing from the people who tried to destroy Kim Davis and DID destroy the Kleins and who drove Brett Weinstein from the campus of a public university in Washington, then tenure has nothing to do with it.
After seeing Ms. Jarrar's picture in the Washington Post, I am exercising my free speech right to call her fat and ugly. In fact, there is much more evidence of this than of Barbara Bush being a racist.
At the same time, I am hiding behind my status as a retiree to state that I cannot be fired for anything I say.
Sad thing is... I grew up in Fresno... Much of my family still lives there... It was a shit-hole 20 years ago, and its only gone down-hill since then... The Bulldogs basketball team were all petty thugs and wanna-be gangsters... and Fresno State is pathetic...
The only two things I can think of in relation to Fresno are FreeRepublic.com and Victor Davis Hanson...
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/20/ben-shapiro-to-uc-berkeley-this-bullsht-will-not-stand/
Meanwhile, here's the same state university system banning a conservative speaker from campus.
But do go on telling me about this professor's sacrosanct First Amendment protections.
Althouse has it right. These are simply crummy comments by a crummy woman, which are protected by the First Amendment.
What Althouse misses (and several insightful commentators above provide) is the Leftwing Alinsky angle about making the "other side" abide by their own rules.
If a liberal cherished icon died (say Jesse Jackson), and a white Rightwing professor made similar crummy comments, he would be denounced, demoted, boycotted, marginalized, demonized and eventually fired, because that's how the Left rolls.
So, how does a clear-thinker handle such assymetrical social warfare?
I don't have a good answer. Ignoring this crazy crummy professor might simply be the least worst option. Or maybe donate another $50 bucks to the Trump campaign.
Chuck said...I suppose that I should add; didn’t Trump get awfully close to calling Bush a war criminal? During the early campaign?
--
Absolutely..because TDS must be expressed!
The sad thing is that Ms. Althouse is technically correct...but she is trying to call for Geneva Convention Protections to the Khmer Rouge...with a jury of middle class Cambodians.
This...is a hard legal sell.
Did she use school hardware or software to send the message?
If she used her personal account on her personal equipment it doesn’t bother me
But making her live up to Alinsky rules priceless
I don't see how this is a free speech issue at all. Nobody is stopping her from speaking. Private companies everywhere expect certain conduct from their employees.
Tenure is a dinosaur that should never have existed.
If I thought a professor would be protected for cheering the death of Michelle Obama, I'd have more pity that this one is being forced to play by the rules that the left would force on others. It is a shame but maybe this will be the wake up call needed to end the outrage wars.
From FIDO: "But any honest analysis shows that these professors DESERVE this treatment. A majority of them have been HORRIBLE on free speech. They have been sowing the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind."
EXACTLY.
These same professors are "triggered" constantly, but when they spout off about something and reap the whirlwind, they cry victim? Nope.
Of course they are trotting out the "violence" and "safety" nonsense....
How can a professor saying something rude and stupid be considered violent, or have any impact on anyone's safety?
She has every right to be obnoxious and insulting. And we have every right to reply in kind.
Trumpit,
Just a reminder..no one voted for Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush.
"What?! Freedom of speech excludes disrespect!??"
What "What?!" This is higher education we are talking about.
Freedom of speech excludes hate speech. Get with the program.
Ann:
The argument is at 1:30. Get your seat early! Packed house.
And the professor at Marquette is a fellow blogger. Marquette Warrior.
I didn't like Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan - two peas in a pod who both set back the women's liberation movement by decades .....
I thought the same of Hillary since 1990.lololol
And look at the snowflakes now.....they need fainting couches I knew she helped set women’s rights back I thought at the time only 50 years. I didn’t expect she and her evil cabal would take us back to fainting couches.
If you think their way of living, simply being the spouse of someone powerful is setback to women..check yourself.
What?! Freedom of speech excludes disrespect!??
There are two issues here (well...probably more, but I want to focus on two)
1) We can probably agree that what she said about Barbara Bush is disrespectful. It may even be a true statement, but it is disrespectful to speak ill of other people given that her family and others are currently grieving.
As an individual citizen she has every right to be a rude, fat, hairy, ignorant bitch with poor hygiene and likely a crazy cat lady with putrid litter boxes in her single apartment. :-D. The correct thing for people to do when someone mouths of in public is to politely ignore them and get another drink on the other side of the room. If she is mouthing off in twitter or elsewhere. Scroll past and ignore. This is a technique that we can use on this blog too!!
2) HOWEVER, when you are employed by a business or institution, you are representing that institution and are obligated to abide by the moral code or rules of conduct that that institution......the one who is PAYING you have specified. Or..you can be fired or disciplined.
You do not have FREE speech rights as a representative of that institution. Some of this falls under the Rules of Agency, which I, as a former agent of various brokerages, life and financial companies, operated under for years.
You are not a FREE agent when you are employed and your employer has every right to "police" your speech when it reflects badly back on THEIR brand or business.
SO....she can be disrespectful on her own time and her own dime. Not on that of her employer.
The best game theoretic strategy against an opponent you believe is likely to cheat is tit-for-tat.
Althouse may have noticed the Left's math deficiency.
Jarrar's "performance art" demonstrates the opportunism of many a modern "public servant":
Find a niche teat that pays way more than you'd ever receive if you had to earn your way by convincing people to voluntarily pay their money for what you do, and exploit the "protections" of that position to the highest bar that prevents you from being terminated.
Here that exceedingly high bar is tenure when it comes to free speech in academia, but all manner of self-serving and corrupt practices have been established as the baseline in other "public service and 'caring' professions".
Note:
I am not saying that the Law of Agency as written for contractual purposes strictly applies to this woman. However, the underlying concept that when you are representing your employer or are perceived as being a representative of that employer....by having your title and position prominently exposed.... that employer has the right to protect itself.
Free on your own. Free to be a disrespectful cow. Yes.
Besmirching the reputation of your institution or employer. Nope.
The "Religion of Peace" speaks volumes about itself again. And the Bushes all submit. They deserve each other. (On the other hand, Trump's Muslim ban is looking better every day.)
Let any parent who pays for a son or daughter to attend Fresno State beware. Shut her speech down? We should far rather know who she really is. We should require all humanities professors to tweet no less than 20 times a day.
The taunting dare by this big fat idiot 'you can NEVER fire ME' is just a level of hubris which would cause your average Greek to run, not walk, far away from you.
If we lose tenure protections, Ms. Althouse, it is because of idiots like THIS in the Academy.
As a sidenote, I'm a free speech absolutist. But, I also think: Everyone plays by the same rules. I'd think it was a terrible thing to run down Michelle Obama in the same way, or Hillary Clinton.
Yes, "Lit Hop" is as stupid as it sounds.
CUNY Law Needs to Fire its Dean
"Inside Higher Ed reports that there will be no sanctions, nor even an investigation, of the students who disrupted Josh Blackman's talk"
Maybe the husband sitting in the sexual position was reading about this topic.
Simple solution. Do away with tenure and let college faculty be judged the same as any other American.
I love the Go BULLDOGS wrap. Expert trolling.
What rich hahn said.
Jaraar is not in favor of free speech, she is in favor of her free speech.
It's the kind of free speech that allows you to shout down people you disagree with.
Important point!
If she had conservative students in her class who decide to express their views which would (obviously) be contrary to her liberal views....would she let them speak? Would she not punish them in giving them bad grades? Would she tell them to shut up or get out of class?
We know what the answers to those questions are. We've seen this show before.
Free speech for her. Not for others.
Another conservative banned from speaking on a public university campus because Administrators objected to his views.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/22450/conservative-professor-banned-university-speaking-james-barrett
I don't recall liberals uttering a peep of protest in defense of this professor's First Amendment rights, or asserting their unwavering commitment to the principles of academic freedom.
Weird.
It's as if it's a one-way ratchet.
The mental health crisis line she gave out (calling it hers) will rack up some numbers..hope no one in need got shut out.
Maybe that's her SOP on the rare occasion someone asks for her number..
Her use of "Sweetie" reminds me of Ing's..the faux polite pat on the head.
Absolutely pathetic.
Women must never be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
A professor used to be called upon to be an example: ethical, responsible, broad minded, and wise.
Which of these factors is she displaying besides 'weighty'?
We're just looking for trouble these days, it seems. I was taught as a child not to react to attention-seekers because you'll only encourage them, and Jarrar's tweeted remarks on the death of Barbara Bush were, to me, the perfect example of the sort of thing you really ought to ignore.
This advice shouldn't apply to politics. This isn't about seeking her firing, it's about revealing how corrupt institutions are to select such mentally imbalanced people out of the vast pool of applicants. People should understand who the left is and what the institutions they pay for value.
This creepy lady is what we get when we keep allowing people who hate America to immigrate here.
Perhaps the problem with tenure, elided by Althouse and other academics who are its beneficiaries, is that tenure is treated as an individual right of professors rather than a commitment to overall free expression and diversity of opinion on campus and in academic departments for the benefit of the students.
In other words, the bureaucratic machinery has been captured for the benefit of the bureaucrats, not the intended beneficiaries.
1.) If tenure is an essential protection for free speech and academic freedom, shouldn't the tenure debate also include a discussion of who receives tenure and why or why not based on viewpoint diversity?
2.) And if there is a limited number of tenured positions, why shouldn't there be some principle that would allow of the equalization the viewpoint diversity in a particular academic department, giving the University the ability to let some tenured members go in order to maintain that balance of viewpoint diversity? Much more in the model of affirmative action that has passed constitutional scrutiny with similar legal protections (e.g., tenured professors could sue if the termination was pretextual and did not hew to the need to balance viewpoint diversity).
Of course, this would threaten leftist hegemony on campus and never be allowed to happen.
I agree with Dust Bunny. The university (which is in a pretty conservative area of California) has a right to protect its image.
Not that I know what they are talking about with "threats of violence". That was stupid.
"Absolutely pathetic. It's really a wonder we've kept the idea of freedom of speech."
I'm no lawyer, but I liked when Sheriff Taylor became Matlock, so it isn't that I hate all lawyers or anything. It just would be cool if more of them were like Matlock, that's all.
Anyway, this Fresno professor chick is an employee, right? I thought freedom of speech didn't extend to a boss having to put up with all your shit. There's probably, like, exceptions and shit, but my understanding is that bosses can fire people for being assholes, that's one of the good things about being boss. My guess is it depends on what kind of asshole you are, because some assholes are probably more protected because they've been oppressed, maybe: that seems to get you out of a lot of things, I think, being oppressed is kinda like tenure that way.
But, like, Althouse can delete comments, right? There isn't a right to free speech here because it's her place, she doesn't have to put up with someone's shit. And that makes sense to me, because I wouldn't want someone coming on my blog and being, like, all offensive and shit.
And I've been deleted here a few times, so I think I get it. I mean, sometimes I can figure out why, and sometimes I'm confused, because you can call someone a cunt and that's okay, but I kinda think it's like the Starbucks shit: when you're in someone else's place you can't just expect to sit around all day and then use the bathroom to take a shit and not even flush, that's just fucked up.
But that's kinda the problem with rights and shit: you think you got them, but then a judge can tell you that no you don't, because of something something vs something something, which is, like, an old law case from another judge who maybe was drunk at the time. It happens.
I post my shit here.
I recall a post by a TA about how she and her academic husband were living in a car, and about how another academic woman had to go to prostitution to make a living.
I wonder if they, if offered a regular job, might be more prone to gratitude for their position and show a little discretion and class as workers.
Just a thought.
She shouldn't be fired. Every time someone gets fired for saying something, it's another thing we can't say without losing our jobs. It's our freedom, too.
The college president's remarks were stupid and very wide of the mark. Let free speech reign. I believe the hateful woman is either a Palestinian or a sympathizer. Consumed with hate we can see why the Palestinians could not build a bicycle in a hundred years.
The fact that the relative of Fidel Castro who is President of Fresno State doesn't understand First Amendment free speech seems like poetic justice for the Palestinian Muslim professor who thinks the Bushes have attainted blood.
Maybe US Constitutional values really are a WASP (or Northwestern European) thing, and don't translate into other cultures. That's sort of what the multi-culties have been trying to tell us. Maybe we should listen, and take that into account in our immigration (and invasion) policies.
John Lynch said...
She shouldn't be fired. Every time someone gets fired for saying something, it's another thing we can't say without losing our jobs. It's our freedom, too."
No, ONLY conservatives lose their jobs. Leftists skate.
The only way this shit will stop is if they start losing their jobs as well.
exile
Marquette fired a conservative professor for essentially promoting free debate regarding same sex marriage.
If a tenured professor says Colored Person instead of Person of Color, then the university will find a way to fire that professor.
You can set it all aside. It boils down to this: Conservatives will be silenced. Progressives are allowed to say whatever, whenever, even if it leads to death.
The media can lie about Ferguson and "hands up don't shoot". It never happened. read the report including Holder's report. Police officers all over the nation were murdered point black execution style as revenge over the media's false reporting.
that's where we are going, folks.
This isn't even Fresno State.
This is Fresno City College, that is a community college.
The smart kids there are getting credits good for a UC transfer.
The ones taking a hip hop creative writing class ...
If Michele Obama died and a conservative professor (there must be at least one or two left in the country) tweeted out similar comments about her, that prof would be fired within a matter of hours. Not only that but the media would undoubtedly dox her and leftist mobs would be screaming outside her door and threatening her life and the lives of her family members.
Milo got banned from Twitter for the crime of calling an unfunny and unattractive black actress unfunny and unattractive. That was hate speech; the ugly brain farts of this prof are just fine.
If I was in town, I would probably plant some fentanyl in her office, and call the police to say she was a drug dealer.
I like to think about non-violent methods, and still get the problem solved.
Buwaya wrote"
"This is Fresno City College, that is a community college."
How can a CC teacher be awarded tenure?
So a professor who gives out a hotline emergency number to troll her critics is just exercising her free speech. So there is nothing to see here, since it's just words.
One good response would be to disrupt her class every day.
Why do you have fentanyl?
The hotline emergency number thing is a clear firing offense.
So it's easy to see whether the college's position is simply to do whatever protects their own libtards.
Andy Krause said...
So a professor who gives out a hotline emergency number to troll her critics is just exercising her free speech"
Oh, yeah, there's that too. I'm sure the people manning the hotline number in Arizona appreciated getting angry calls about a professor in California which kept anybody who legitimately needed help from getting though to them.
They should put her in a Green Room with make work, ala New York Teaching Union practices.
Blogger EDH said...
Perhaps the problem with tenure, elided by Althouse and other academics who are its beneficiaries, is that tenure is treated as an individual right of professors rather than a commitment to overall free expression and diversity of opinion on campus and in academic departments for the benefit of the students.
There are many academics and grad students in the humanities who are convinced that the calling of an academic is to criticize the society that produced them. It is not to preserve and transmit the best of of culture. It is to destroy the culture and erect a better culture in its place.
In the age of "privilege" and "fair", maybe lording your salary and job security over others is pretty stupid.
Worth noting that while there is debate over being fired for public speech, social media doxxing when screening a hire is likely common place.
You are not a FREE agent when you are employed and your employer has every right to "police" your speech when it reflects badly back on THEIR brand or business.
Indeed, and she was the one that pointed out that agency when she touted her position as a Fresno State employee. Had she made the comments as an individual and others outed her as a state employee; then I could be a bit more sympathetic.
My company supports many views, but if I were to come out and say something controversial, and then specifically tie that back to my employer as a view protected by them; then I'd be suggesting a greater role as a representative. Tenure may protect her right to controversy in the classroom or scholarly discussion. But her discussion is in the public domain. She doxed herself.
In itself, I don't see that what was so horribly horrible about the tweets. Puerile vicious stuff gets posted about people every day, yea, even by college professors. (What, you think as a class "college professors" are a "classier" lot than any other bunch of idiots using social media?) Who is Barbara Bush that I should be shocked that she gets the same treatment?
Don't know why boilerplate prog vituperation counts as "edgy", either. "Edgy". Insert eye roll. Looks like she just copied the comments made about Thatcher or Reagan back in the day.
The problem is, of course, the same old boring problem of lefty double-standards. (One would not be shocked to discover the oh-so-edgy, free-speakin' Ms. Jarrar first in line to demand the social and professional annihilation of anyone free-speakin' non-prog opinions, while adamantly denying or ignoring that there was any hypocrisy or contradiction whatsoever in her actions.)
A problem which has not been ameliorated in the least, let alone solved, by half a century of pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standards of the left.
AA: Absolutely pathetic. It's really a wonder we've kept the idea of freedom of speech.
Isn't it, though. Why are progs always so shocked when what all the damned fools said would happen, happens?
Professors have been unjustly fired for more innocuous remarks. This has made Fresno State a laughing stock and she has shown the deplorable state of our university faculties. For that, we should be grateful.
What Bay Area Guy said @ 7:48.
Best option is ignore. Nonetheless, the "other side" have set the rules, and those abhorent rules won't be rolled back until they feel the hurt. Doing no more than standind on principle only gets you the "noble loser" award, just like the GOPe. Terrible situation, but it's the one we have now.
The other reason to highlight Jarrar is so the next effort to fire a non-leftist makes academia's political bias even more obvious. Every such instance destroys a little more of academia's credibility and moving us closer to ending its significantly negative impact on our politics and culture.
She should not be fired. But Althouse left out the fact she posted a campus suicide hotline number as her own and invited calls. She shouldn’t be fired for that either but she should be punished somehow.
The linked WaPo article says CSU Fresno, casually known as Fresno State. I’m not sure how this discussion veered off and cited Fresno City College. Is another publication placing her on FCC faculty?
I don't think this should be ignored - ignoring this type of action by the left for so long leads to problems such as the misconception of the amount of racism on the part of whites in the U.S. The left has been preaching bullshit like that for so long, that it becomes part of the "accepted truth." Ignoring something like this is appropriate when it is an isolated instance, not when it has become the norm.
All conservative speech is hate speech and should be banned.
Brownshirts 101
Women's March commented, "Rest in Peace and Power, Barbara Bush", Seattle Socialist city councilwoman Kshama Sawant responded in a tweet, "This is terrible. @womensmarch organizers have helped lead historic protests since Trump's election but this tweet shows how, without a political compass, even well-meaning progressives can end up giving cover to ruling class & ultimately undermining struggles against oppression."
She was roundly criticized by Women's March members for her remarks, such as one by 'Sara': "You’re Politics is sick with resentment, and anger. Explains why we have seen little as far as solutions to our homeless explosion, but a significant increase in vitriolic political rhetoric."
Perhaps the Left's version of the 'Tea Party' is gaining disfavor in the ranks. As I've observed before, Satan always overplays his hand.
Mike,
I was confused by that as well. She teachs at Fresno State. Fresno City College disinvited her from a speaking gig at a conference they're holding.
Ms. Althouse is a strong defender of 'free speech' as some requirement for teachers to be protected from...censure? The same Academy who hired Bill Ayers.
I reject the necessity of tenure protections to create 'good scholarship'.
Roger and Francis Bacon, Copernicus, the teachers of the University of Paris, who were paid directly by the student...we have gotten scholastic luminaries from 'broken systems'.
And I always recall a line from a SCI/FI story which resonated: "In Rome, the teachers were all slaves."
So compare a Cicero to this bint and wonder who has the more broken educational system...
Actually lots of California college administrations have been A-OK with shoutdowns and threats of physical violence as excuses to silence conservatives. They can’t credibly say they weren’t warned that they wouldn’t like having the rules they put in place applied to them.
Article exerpted by Althouse refs Fresno City College.
Absolutely pathetic. It's really a wonder we've kept the idea of freedom of speech.
I wonder why this particular instance merits such a clear criticism. Other Professors have actually been fired (Marquette, among others) or resigned after the college told them it couldn't protect them (Evergreen).
This event seems minor in comparison. The professor's job is on no danger and the mealy mouth President is clearly trying to minimize free speech because any blanket defense here will prove their double standards when those definitions are used to protect left wing activists. But that position has already been admitted in those other circumstances.
Buwaya, see CWJ above. I think that’s the correct explanation.
Skunk at garden party says this.
Yes we have freedom of speech and most employers also have the "freedom" to fire people.
Except in academia where "tenure" is a sacred custom.
I think the woman ought to have been fired, as she would have been if she was a corporate executive.
My conclusions: Yes, keep free speech but dump tenure.
Fuck that terrorist ham planet. No more one sided application of the lefts rules. Total war, baby. Clausewitz style.
Too bad this woman's tweets are protected now. I'm almost certain she probably had something to say about Kevin Williamson and The Atlantic. Free speech for me but not thee won't get anyone vert far.
Also, she should be fired for giving out a mental health hotline number as a prank. That has nothing to do with free speech.
Althouse: " It's really a wonder we've kept the idea of freedom of speech."
NARRATOR: WE DID NOT KEEP THE IDEA OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And Althouse helped throw it overboard.
I noticed a lot of homelessness during the Obama years. Nothing was said about it.
it's a big problem now.
Why do you have fentanyl?
Easy to obtain all along MLK blvd.
I don't think she should be fired.
She should be encouraged to apologize for saying such a distasteful utterance on behalf of her employer, (I presume a public university) and told that if she wants to say things like it, to do so with her own private accounts, on her own time.
Of course if someone one the "right" said the exact same thing about a precious leftwing politician's death, that person WOULD be fired, shamed, and David Hogg would be rolled out to demand the entire university be banned and boycotted.
JC (a different JC) in transition
Does anyone think this woman keeps politics out of her classroom? Anyone? Bueller?
So, she invokes her position during her little hate fest. She causes calls to a hotline (as a prank[?] on conservatives).
And she considers herself held harmless due to tenure.
Got it, free speech for the hard, hateful left. 'Cause I'm sure the good Professor (do they have Professors at a CC?) stands firm for free speech by conservatives.
Feh. I don't even call for a level playing field (too many would tump over at the sudden change0. But lets have a LITTLE perspective here.
Well, California now has $12 BILLION dollars which is going to come out of the pockets of their master class...who happen to LIKE money.
One wonders if any tax cuts or budget reassessments will occur. And I wonder how they will effect that glorious and rich state education system.
No Republican should vote another penny for the educational system as long as it continues to be an enemy enterprise.
She causes calls to a hotline (as a prank[?] on conservatives).
Why do you think this is a problem? She made them believe the number was hers which means they intended to harass her directly. What right do people intending to harass her have to complain that they were unable to do so?
“With all freedom comes responsibility, freedom of speech is no different.”
The wisest comment on this entire thread.
Giving out a fake number is one thing; deliberately inundating a call center meant to help people is another.
I'd fire her for that, but not the stupid comment.
With all freedom comes responsibility, freedom of speech is no different.
This well-meaning remark doesn't allow for definition of responsible or irresponsible speech. And therein lies the problem.
There's no hate like leftist hate. They claim to be tolerant and loving but they're anything but. It must suck to live like that.
She causes calls to a hotline (as a prank[?] on conservatives).
Why do you think this is a problem?
I'll pretend you did not just had a momentary flash of stupid. Let me spell it out:
A HOTLINE is for people in distress. If people are plugging up the lines to comment on this woman those in distress can NOT get the help they seek.
“This well-meaning remark doesn't allow for definition of responsible or irresponsible speech. And therein lies the problem.”
True enough. Her tweets were irresponsible to her employer, hateful and while she shouldnt be fired, she should be punished, which it seems she has been. Her employer has the right not to be associated with her remarks and distanced themselves from her.
I think the problem is that she escalated it by hiding behind her employer and using her employer as a shield.
Shorter leftwing prof: "I'm a good lefty and my speech is freer than yours nah nah knee nah nah. and MY university will protect me..." or something.
she could be an idiot.
mock to Inga: "With all freedom comes responsibility, freedom of speech is no different."
This well-meaning remark doesn't allow for definition of responsible or irresponsible speech. And therein lies the problem.
True to form, Inga responds (see 10:52 AM) with glorious incomprehension of your point.
She's outdoing herself today.
Her free speech isn't in question. She's got the right to say what she wants and she did. This does not give her the right to be immune from criticism or from people disagreeing, even vehemently, with her. Free speech also does not give you immunity from codes laid out by your employer, while at work, or while representing them. They cannot control your speech, but they do not have to keep employing you if you've broken an agreed upon conduct code. Fresno State did not drag her kicking and screaming from her bed at night, chain her to the desk at FSU and make her teach young minds how to think. She's doing that in an agreed upon relationship- the school hired her to produce in a specific field. For that they pay her and (get this) give her a job from which she cannot be fired? Well...maybe not. Maybe even tenured Prima Donnas have to keep to a base minimum standard of decency. Though I don't really believe that.
Either way- she's still able to say what she wants. That's not even a question. Even if she loses her job (which she won't) her free speech is intact and she can then go on tirades about FSU, without the 'state' arresting her. Or she can look for another employer who has different standards- such as MSNBC. Or, she can start her own damn business. After all- this is a free country, right? At least for about 10 more years, I figure.
If people are plugging up the lines to comment on this woman those in distress can NOT get the help they seek.
It takes ten seconds to tell someone they've been pranked and hang up. There is zero chance this impacted anyone looking for help.
Rick,
It obviously depends on the numbers and frequency.
Yes. Are we pretending it's reasonable to believe a million people called the hotline?
Double standards must be opposed, it seems to me. One of the biggest complaints from the Left these days is that the Right seems to have decided at some point that they will no longer play by the rules set by the Left for the Right. Ms. Jarrar is just the latest example of this change. Goose, meet Gander.
It also depends on staffing. You are pretending to know way too much.
The Fresno prof did too.
Phone lines aren't free, and neither are the people needed to answer them. Do you think their operators put in an extra 50 lines just for kicks? Just to make it a nice, round number?
Or is it more likely that they install the minimum number of lines needed and the minimum number of staff needed to accomplish their mission and no more?
What would you do?
Nobody likes the game theoretical answer to these issues. But tit-for-tat remains the only viable strategy in cases such as this.
Even a flatworm will turn from pain. Eventually.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-young-free-speech-on-campus-20180408-story.html
From the LA Times: "Half of college students aren't sure protecting free speech is important. That's bad news."
The campus fascists made their bed. Now let them lie in it.
"There is zero chance this impacted anyone looking for help."
Nope, it wasn't a MOMENTARY flash of stupid. And not a math major I'll wager.
You might begin by reassessing the phrase "zero chance".
But here's an experiment. Call 911 twenty or so times today and give them a comment on, say, your car needing washed. Yep, it'll only take a few seconds for them to tell you wrong number. Another call or two (pretend you are dozens, if not hundreds of folk angry at the Prof.) and it'll be more than wrong number.
You can explain to the cops sure to visit that, "There is zero chance your calls impacted anyone looking for help".
Let us know how it went.
Althouse probably doesn't like game theory all that well. We can leave that for M&A, Antitrust, and of course Chicago.
Maybe I will search her academic writing for game theoretic work.
Please note, Rick. I said 20 calls, not millions. [Another mental flash died aborning.]
In fact I'd wager just three or four 911 calls will get results.
Double dog dare you.
Rick has decided opportunity cost isn't.
Experience and sound reasoning proves otherwise.
Investigations cost $$
What investigation?
Or is it more likely that they install the minimum number of lines needed and the minimum number of staff needed to accomplish their mission and no more?
The minimum number of lines needed is zero so no they aren't staffing to it. In order to do what you're suggesting the call volume needs to be predictable which the nature of this hotline precludes.
“She's outdoing herself today.”
You’re outdoing your bitchiness today. Constipated?
"There is zero chance this impacted anyone looking for help."
It was still a shitty thing to do...just like her original tweets.
Jarrar is a shitty person.
Inga
Good lord. Do not tangle with Buwaya or Angle-Dyne. As amusing as it is to watch you try and match wits with these two the delight is offset by the sheer horror of seeing you eviscerated without you even noticing. These are seriously smart people. The blog is filled with seriously smart people but these two are in the top tier. Don't even try to have a debate with them and for the love of God try to see that this forum is a good place to learn. It is not a chat room.
Birkel wrote:
"tit-for-tat remains the only viable strategy in cases such as this."
Precisely right.
Michael,
I’ve said many times, I’m here to express my opinions. I really don’t care to go head to head with anyone here. That’s not why I’m here. You and the Buzzard are compatico, as you both are boring, pretentious, condescending assholes and I delight in telling you so every single time you remind me of it. The Buzzard doesn’t impress me and neither do you.
Rick:
The minimum number of lines needed is zero so no they aren't staffing to it. In order to do what you're suggesting the call volume needs to be predictable which the nature of this hotline precludes.
Jesus. Were you born a f***ing idiot or did your parent send you to a special summer camp?
She accomplished what she wanted: to be famous/infamous.
I do not expect much from college administrators. It's a job mainly for credentialed but not especially bright people who get paid well despite not having much of any talent. It looks good for colleges when their graduates with useless degrees get paid.
As someone who is more or less a free speech absolutist even in the civil area, I am not asking for her firing for her speech. However, there are two things that disturb me. First, why in the world did the college hire her in the first place? She's probably a major pain to deal with in general and it baffles me that anyone would voluntarily want such a person around, much less want to pay said person. Second, it is very poor form for someone to tout that they have tenure as a reason why they can act like an asshole.
That all said, I am asking for punishment for her on the grounds that she gave a mental health hotline phone number as her personal phone number, which most likely resulted in the hotline getting deluged with calls and could have prevented people who desperately needed that service from getting through. That goes beyond speech into direct damage against the hotline and its clients. It's basically attempting to incite a virtual riot against an innocent party.
I wish Ms. Althouse was even half as fervent about guarding attorney client privilege as she is about guarding tenure and Academic Free Speech.
One protects every citizen from the arrogant malignancy of the government.
The other protects a small number of arrogant people from their own public self immolation.
She's probably a major pain to deal with in general and it baffles me that anyone would voluntarily want such a person around, much less want to pay said person.
I doubt there are lines around the block for a position at Fresno for creative writer teachers.
But she also checks off blocks 2 (woman), 7a (Muslim), and 27f (Body Triple Plus ++) in Diversity Bingo.
Plus, when she is dealing with her fellow Insufferable Liberal Professors, her comments aren't even noteworthy. She just sought too large a venue outside the Bubble.
The right to free speech is nearly absolute — the right that there be no consequences doed not exist.
Female, Muslim, college professor, educated at Sarah Lawrence. What are the odds that she would be capable of making a tasteful or truthful comment about any Republican woman, let alone GWB’s mom.
Inga
I am not trying to impress you, I am simply trying to spare you the embarassment of strolling around with a bucket on your foot and thinking it is a Jimmy Choo.
Every time a flap like this happens, a feminist academic gets her hyphen.
I haven't seen anyone challenge the 1.5 million Iraqis killed figure. That was a preposterous Lancet estimate, if I remember correctly. the BBC did a survey and put the estimate at 461,000-- which included indirect deaths. More likely the civilian deaths were in the 180,000 range and this includes Sunni-Shia violence-- not a direct result of the American military.
Meh, this is so 2004 with Ward Churchill (faux indian) making his 'Little Eichmann's' crack. These assholes are free to spout as much hatred as they see fit, just give conservatives and the right the same consideration and equal treatment when they say something awful. Is that so hard?
Force the left live by the rules they impose upon everybody else.
The assault on free speech is global.
An interesting Australian parallel is the case of Australian rugby union player Israel Folau whose strongly held religious beliefs had him say in public that gay people were destined to a life in hell unless they repented for their "sins”.
Naturally this has been followed by calls for his sacking from the team and threats by sponsors, including Qantas, to withdraw their support of Australian rugby.
We are replacing the ability to respond to objectionable speech with the elimination of the right to free speech.
Beyond pathetic, this is terrifying.
Blogger FIDO said... But she also checks off blocks 2 (woman), 7a (Muslim), and 27f (Body Triple Plus ++) in Diversity Bingo.
You forgot the add her Tats to award her the Quadfecta
Actually this is the perfect illustration of the value of free speech. In this case it helped identify a vicious asshole (and I don't mean Barbara Bush).
Gk 1 says: These assholes are free to spout as much hatred as they see fit, just give conservatives and the right the same consideration and equal treatment when they say something awful.
Yes, that's all we ask.
Fresno ain't the Bay Area, it ain't Southern Ca, it's not even Sacramento.... It's a reddish purple /citycounty.
Problem lies with Fresno St is that almost all of it's major donors in all depts are conservative who strongly disagree with the type of behavior of this prof. I seriously doubt the Fresno St English dept gets another donor dime of any meaning, while she is employed there.
Prez Castro has to speak the speak to protect his "U" from Donor flight.... Being a State University within the Ca system,..It's already tenuous enough...
Per Howard: You forgot the add her Tats to award her the Quadfecta
And do we know for sure she's not L,B,G,T or Q?
And do we know for sure she's not L,B,G,T or Q?
I am assuming that if she wants a sex life, it is probably a 75% certainty.
Althouse seems to have overlooked this:
Trump Pal’s Vicious Attack On Barbara Bush Is Proof That Truly Wretched Beings Walk Among Us
Apparently Prof. Jarrar is into Muslim BDSM: two kinds of submission in one! See this Twitter thread by the essential Thomas Wictor.
ARM,
It is a small souled thing to say 'Trump's Pal' just to do a passive aggressive third hand slam at a man who didn't say these things.
If we are going down that road, let's bring up Reverend Wright and Farrakhan again.
ARM's pal Prof. Jabba weighs in -- says she has more gravitas than Roger Stone.
Jason,
I think you mean Kim Davis, county clerk from Kentucky. (Wendy Davis is Abortion Barbie...)
This is a bad take... It's not a free speech issue, although it might be a first amendment issue.
The first amendment limits the ability of the government to keep individuals from speaking and limits their ability to punish people for speaking. Free speech is the right to speak, and the right of other people to hear what you want to say to them, it is not freedom from consequences.
Do these potential consequences chill free speech? Absolutely. But free speech is not a suicide pact, insulating people from the consequences of their actions would per se infringe on the rights of other people, including but not limited to THEIR freedom of speech.
If your speech creates bona fide issues for your employer, you could be fired. If your friends find your speech offensive, they can choose not to be your friends. If the public at large finds your speech intolerable, they can choose not to patronize you. And if you say something insufferably stupid, especially on the internet, then you cannot possibly expect not to be criticized.
Why might this be a first amendment issue? Because in this case the employer in question is the government; If the employee in question was a Starbucks employee, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Does that mean that the government cannot punish their employees the same ways as other employers? Yes, frankly.... but again, the first amendment isn't a suicide pact either, and luckily enough, the tests for whether the relationship in question is that of a private citizen and a government or an employee and an employer is fairly clearly lined out. It's a three parter:
1) A question: Was the employee speaking about a matter of public interest?
2) A question: Was the employee acting as a private citizen, or as part of their job duties?
3) A balance: The interest of the employee against the interest of the employer in promoting the efficient delivery of public services
For 1 and 2, the questions are almost certainly in Jarrar's favor, The death of a former first lady is per se a matter of public interest, and she was on leave at the time she sent those tweets. For 3 though.... Jarrar made it particularly easy to argue that she was negatively affecting the workings of the school by injecting her private actions into them: She told Twitter to harass both her boss and her school's crisis hotline. I'll leave it to the lawyers, because I'm sure they'll be involved, but this seems like a slam dunk situation where the first amendment wouldn't apply. After that is tenure.
For the record, this woman caused the hotline to get shut down for two days.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/04/19/fresno-state-professor-randa-jarrar-prank-floods-asu-hotline-barbara-bush/532486002/.
Just in case Rick's idiocy wasn't already self-evident.
I have three strand of thought on this. From the general to the specifoc, 1) A’s with all rights, the right to free speech comes with an obligation to accept the consequences of unwise use of that right. If you abuse your second amendment right by firing your gun in the air or your religious right by mutilating the genatslia of children, you will quickly observe consequences. 2) For too long free speech has, especially in the academy, become free speech only for the left. The left may use whatever insult , lie, or calumny they choose while the right is expected to respond with decorum and civility. This state of affairs has resulted in the near disappearance of half the polity from academia and the media. Those days are over and the screeching left can now expect to be shouted down, shut out, doxxed and deplatformed. Welcome to the world you have made Prof. Jarra. 3) When you show yourself to be a bore and a boor, expect to people respond accordingly.
Whatever happened to this woman?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा